Housing - let's just not go there!

[Tim Lund]

I was at a meeting of the Perry Vale ward co-ordinators yesterday evening, and the question of updating our Action Plan came up - the current version can be downloaded as a Word document here.

It includes the following priorities

• the environment
• roads and traffic
• activities for younger people
• anti-social behaviour and crime
• activities for the whole community

and the question was raised as to whether there should be any new priorities included. Tentatively I suggested housing. I knew it wasn't going to make it, but it's an interesting question why. The reaction from the local Councillors present was that it was something they were well on top of, which is not something I dispute; and I have absolutely no doubt that they know far more about the issues to do with social housing, which they immediately referred to. What's interesting is the equation:

"Housing"
= "social housing"
= "lots of difficult issues which are best not discussed at Local Assemblies"

There was also a welcome candid discussion about the unrepresentativeness of the sorts of people like me who get onto co-ordinating groups, and attend these Local Assemblies. Given the above equations, this is even less surprising.

The root of the problem is the first step - equating housing to social housing - and it doesn't just get in the way of sensible discussion at local assemblies. Too few houses have been built in London over the last 20 years - but people's thinking immediately goes to how we can get more social housing built.

We also need to think about what's happening in the private sector. Because of the general shortage of supply, house prices and rents are way too high. Apart from the more widely recognised consequent social problems of the young sofa-surfing and immigrants living in sheds, it has a knock on effect on something we do allow ourselves to talk about - High Street vitality.

If I was a commercial landlord, unable to find retail tenants, I'm not sure I'd be too bothered as long as I could get some nice high rent from the flats above, with the prospect, should the Council eventually relent on changing the planning use class, of getting rent for the ground floor as well.

We need more housing full stop - and not just social housing. In fact, some people might prefer private housing to social housing in their neighbourhoods.

Another item on the Perry Vale Assembly agenda was a presentation to be made about the Neighbourhood Forum plan being developed by the Forest Hill and Sydenham Societies. Is any one involved in this able to say what views they have on housing density in our area, any views on where it should be allowed, and what mix of new social and private sector housing they would envisage? Or is this somewhere we'd not rather go?

[michael]

Tim,
Housing density guidelines are set out in the London Plan. Neighbourhood plans would not be able to override these calculations, or PTAL ratings.
Lewisham has plans, and has attracted funding from Thames Gateway, for a large increase in residential developments in the corridor from Deptford and New Cross to Catford. Lewisham expects housing growth in the south west of the borough to be gradual but stable. Overall the total increase for Lewisham in households from 2001 to 2026 is just under 40%.

Any writing of a neighbourhood plan will take time and require input from a large number of people with different opinions. It is possible that a plan would identify some areas suitable for large redevelopment, either for residential or commercial - FH town centre and Willow Way spring to mind. At the same time I would like to see a recognition that, in one of the hilliest parts of London, PTAL ratings cannot be assessed on distance alone, gradient/altitude is important and prevents some from walking rather than driving (particularly for shopping). Canonbie Road and Colfe Road probably have the same PTAL rating, but there needs to be some recognition that residents of hills are more likely to have cars, even when they have less than 3 bedrooms.

At the same time we have to recognise that sites close to transport hubs are going to be in high demand from developers and help bring people to the high streets. Developments like the Greyhound, Finches, Olympic Heights, Phoenix Works, and Print Works, demonstrate that this is happening in our area, and probably at the maximum level appropriate.

While housing is an important issue that is addressed in Lewisham's Core Strategy, that does not mean it should be a top priority for the assemblies and neighbourhood planning in areas of generally low growth. And although funding for neighbourhood plans from developments may be helpful, this cannot be the justification of a neighbourhood plan.

Finally, it is not for the coordinating group to set the priorities of the action plan, these should be set by the assembly. The coordinating group is there to ensure these are properly reflected in the action plan and the projects considered for local assembly funds.

[bensonby]

Do we need more housing? The place seems pretty crowded as it is: and what about extra strain on healthcare, schools, police, social services, etc etc?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Dorian]

Housing density guidelines are set out in the London Plan. Neighbourhood plans would not be able to override these calculations, or PTAL ratings.

I beleive the original PTAL based density matrix used the word to " maximise" and this has been ammended to "optomise" to make it more area/site specific. A step in the right direction?

[Eagle]

Well said Bensonby.

The figure of 40% increase from 2001 to 2026 is frightening. Where is the agricultural land in UK to provide enough food. We are in a water scarce area. Lewisham already has enough people.

[Tim Lund]

Good response, Michael, which at the moment I don't have time to follow up ...

Bensonby - it may seem crowded to you, so you have very reasonably moved out. But many other people are crowding in. Local authorities, when they grant planning permission, can require payments - formerly Section 106 agreements, now Community Infrastructure Levy - to meet the costs you very fairly identify.

[Tim Lund]

Where is the agricultural land in UK to provide enough food.

In a disused quarry in Kent



On a rather more extensive scale, my farming cousins in Essex were recently telling me about the increased yields - and better conditioned soil - they were achieving thanks to using 'bio-solids',

[youtubes]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjxcFu_HSR8[/youtubes]

which thanks to the sort of business regulation we need more of*, they now get much more cheaply than they used to have to pay chemical companies for expensive, fossil fuel consuming fertilisers.

* Water companies have been banned from just dumping it in the rivers, so initially they were just giving it away. Now they charge, but it still makes commercial sense for farmers.

Of course, you may just think this is a load of c**p

On the other hand, if you - like me - want to preserve the beauty of the English countryside, then we need to find places for people to live in cities - which in fact most people do.

[michael]

The figure of 40% increase from 2001 to 2026 is frightening. Where is the agricultural land in UK to provide enough food. We are in a water scarce area. Lewisham already has enough people.

One important point about the 40% increase is that it is number of households, not total population. With an ageing population and other socio-economic factors there is an expectation for the number of households to increase much faster than the population.

There are parts of Lewisham that have massive potential for increased housing and redevelopment, these are predominantly in the north of the borough.

There is no reason why London should depend only on England/UK for food. My view is that there is nothing wrong with cities importing food from a very wide area, and that international trade is positive for all who are involved. Land values and wages mean it has to be more sensible to import fruit from Eastern Europe and beyond, rather than importing Eastern Europeans to pick the fruit in English poly-tunnels.

[Tim Lund]

Housing density guidelines are set out in the London Plan. Neighbourhood plans would not be able to override these calculations, or PTAL ratings.

I beleive the original PTAL based density matrix used the word to " maximise" and this has been ammended to "optomise" to make it more area/site specific. A step in the right direction?

I think you're right there, Dorian. I think only a relatively small amount of London, redeveloped to levels allowed by PTALs and the London Plan, would be enough to meet the excess demand for housing, so I don't think these are the constraints. I suspect that social housing developers generally can get planning permissions, but are limited by capacity and finance; while would be developers of purely private sector housing find it hard to get planning permission because (1) they don't tick the box for social housing, and (2) they run into all sorts of arguments from locals as to why their area is not the right one. Any one from Colfe Road up to explain why not in their back yard?

[bensonby]

Surely there is a case to reduce demand though? More (lower occupancy) households are inefficient. Why not encourage more people to live in households and discourage single-occupancy.

Dispose of the single-occupancy council-tax break for starters and insentivise house-shares etc.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Tim Lund]

There is no reason why London should depend only on England/UK for food. My view is that there is nothing wrong with cities importing food from a very wide area, and that international trade is positive for all who are involved. Land values and wages mean it has to be more sensible to import fruit from Eastern Europe and beyond, rather than importing Eastern Europeans to pick the fruit in English poly-tunnels.

Indeed, in general, although I think you forget the transport costs of perishable commodities such as picked fruit, and their extra quality when fresh, which should keep UK horticulture viable.

[Tim Lund]

Surely there is a case to reduce demand though? More (lower occupancy) households are inefficient. Why not encourage more people to live in households and discourage single-occupancy.

Dispose of the single-occupancy council-tax break for starters and insentivise house-shares etc.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I sympathise - I too find it a bit sad that people are unwilling to share their houses, but ultimately it has to be their choice. Removing any kind of tax break sounds good in principle, but that's really more a matter for general tax reform - see here.

[Eagle]

Michael / Tim
Food like raw materials is only going one way price wise over next few years.
As population of the world increases and other countries get richer both will become more scarce.

We already have a vast balance of payments deficit , which in relation to the above , will only get worse.

People will only sell us food if we can afford to pay them for their products. For that to happen we will have to produce items that others need and are prepared to pay for which will become increasingly hard in coming years due to competition.

We have entered a new era. The old rules are out of the window.

[Tim Lund]

Michael / Tim
Food like raw materials is only going one way price wise over next few years.
As population of the world increases and other countries get richer both will become more scarce.

We already have a vast balance of payments deficit , which in relation to the above , will only get worse.

People will only sell us food if we can afford to pay them for their products. For that to happen we will have to produce items that others need and are prepared to pay for which will become increasingly hard in coming years due to competition.

We have entered a new era. The old rules are out of the window.

Nothing to disagree with here - I think UK farmland could be a good investment - sadly I'm not aware of an easy way to buy a share of it via the stock market. But do we need to protect it, or introduce protectionist measures to favour UK grown food vs. imports? I don't think so - please allow me to lend you my copy of "The Hungry Forties: Life under the Bread Tax", a collection of personal testimonies about how life was before the Corn Laws were repealed in 1846.

[Dorian]

Only 10% of Britain is built on, and that includes roads and railways.

[Eagle]

Dorian
I will not argue that 10% of UK built on. That does not mean 90% is for agriculture, either arable or pasture.

Not sure of percentage of arable land but would guess lucky if 30%. We will never grow enough for out people even though we import thousands of tons of fertiliser.

I do appreciate we will always need to import some food but we do not need to make the situation worse than it would be by a large population increase.

Perhaps we should adopt the Chinese one child policy but in our case could be two. Worked wonders for China would be 400 million more mouths to feed if they had not gone down that road.

[Tim Lund]

We will never grow enough for out people even though we import thousands of tons of fertiliser.

This is wrong - that was the point of my mentioning what high tech growing is achieving in 'Planet Thanet' - something like 25% of UK salad production, all year round, from a single, admitted large, brown field site. Incidentally, I first heard about it from these same farming cousins, who used to grow comparable crops - mint, horse-radish for the respective sauces - but looked at what these highly capitalised competitors could do on a much smaller space and knew this was not a business to be in.

And the point about bio-solids is that we are producing them right here - nothing to import, and the more people we have here, the more we produce. It's so completely logical, a coming together of economics, environmentalism and reasonable government regulation. It almost makes me happy

[Stefan]

Why should people share their houses, IMO it is nobodies business what you do or dont do in your own house!! I reported empty flats to the council and nothing was done about it, thats the scandal!

[Eagle]

Tim
If I am wrong I am happy. Not sure where you get the facts we can produce all our own food if we are required to do, but if they are correct I applaud.

Whilst respecting your integrity I am not entirely convinced.

[Tim Lund]

Why should people share their houses, IMO it is nobodies business what you do or dont do in your own house!! I reported empty flats to the council and nothing was done about it, thats the scandal!

There's absolutely no moral reason why you should, which is why policies which seem designed to push people into doing what they don't want to are so resented. There may be some personal economic reasons - your house sharer can also share your bills, and social ones - if you get on with them, it's more enjoyable too. The problem comes with framing policies which will seem fair, in this case not pushing people one way or the other, against their inclinations. Council tax is a bit of a nightmare in this regard, because it's not clear whether it is to be justified as a property tax - in which case how many people living somewhere should make no difference - or an personal tax, which would justify the tax break Bensonby mentioned. When Mrs Thatcher introduced it, she thought of it a more a charge for local services - which justifies limiting the absolute amount which the richest people have to pay. Thanks to the limited number of Council tax bands, this feature is also in the Council Tax. It's famously one of the most mixed up taxes there is, and can really only be justified in two ways: (1) it's local, so encouraging local councils to be careful with how they spend their money, and (2) it's relatively easy to collect.